Making the Rounds: All This BCS is Making My Head Hurt

(Photo by Eliot J. Schechter/Getty Images)

"In theory, an antitrust case could be made that the six athletic conferences that dominate the BCS have an unfair advantage over the five other conferences, which are not traditional football powerhouses.

But the argument has been largely confined to bars and sports pages, because nobody seems terribly eager to fight it out in court."

This is the best way to bust up the BCS because the money distribution is not fair when a non-BCS team makes it to a BCS game.  However Hatch did not go in that direction, and instead said that because of the league Utah is in they never had a chance at a title.

Matt Hinton, Dr. Saturday: The big point in the hearings was when Harvey Perlman said that if Utah played Nebraska's schedule.  Perlman made it seemed like it was oh so simple.

Not really since Utah has only four games to beef up their schedule, and getting teams four teams in the top 25 is impossible.

Here is what The Doc had to say on this:

Replace "the schedule Nebraska played" with "the schedule Florida played" or "the schedule Oklahoma played" or "the schedule [insert powerhouse] played"; Nebraska, specifically, is not important here. (A good thing for Perlman, because the Huskers haven't beaten a ranked team since 2001.)

What is important is that of course Utah could not have played the schedule Nebraska (or Florida or Oklahoma) played. It's literally not possible on multiple levels under the current system, which is precisely the issue Hatch and his BCS-hating colleagues are attacking here.

Even though if Harvey Perlman did his homework, the Utah schedule was rated as the 56th and only 18 spots behind Nebraska.  So the difference is not there.

Overall there is not much difference in was written about, and the media outside of Utah have been all over these BCS hearings.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?